International Development Outcomes for Women and Girls

Baroness Sugg Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cuts to Official Development Assistance on international development outcomes for women and girls.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to bring forward this debate and I thank all noble Lords who will speak. Although speaking time is unfortunately short, I hope that today’s interest leads to further opportunities to examine the impact of cuts to official development assistance. I declare my interests, as set out on the register, of support from the Coalition for Global Prosperity, and my position as chair of Plan International UK.

Since the Government announced ODA cuts, many in this House have challenged the logic: defence and development are not competing priorities but mutually reinforcing. This is a political choice, with devastating consequences, which undermines the UK’s ambitions and commitments. The cuts are not felt on paper or in government strategy documents; they are felt in the daily lives of millions among the most fragile communities globally, especially women and girls, who disproportionately bear the consequences.

Despite progress, and thanks in no small part to the work of UK development, the scale of the challenge globally remains staggering: 840 million women have been victims of physical or sexual violence; every two minutes, a woman dies from pregnancy or childbirth complications; and 133 million girls are not in school. Crises, be they conflict, climate or health, hit women and girls hardest. Violence increases, including sexual violence as a weapon of war, trafficking and early and forced marriage. In Sudan alone, 17.1 million women and girls now need humanitarian assistance, and 4.3 million have been displaced. According to ICAI, at the current pace, ending gender-based violence and achieving equality for women and girls will take another 100 years, so for the UK to be stepping back is deeply regrettable.

I welcome the Government’s new international strategic framework on women and girls, particularly its focus on SRHR and integration across health, education and survivor support. I also welcome the inclusion of women and girls as one of the FCDO’s six refreshed priorities. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for their efforts in international fora and in the difficult—if regrettable—decisions around ODA allocations. As we face another change in No. 10 in the coming weeks, I hope that they can both continue this important work. The Government deserve credit for their target of 90% of bilateral ODA programmes contributing to gender equality by 2030. This is a significant commitment that builds on our positive track record on gender equality reporting. I hope that when the bilateral allocations are published shortly, the Government will have a clear assessment of progress towards that commitment.

All that said, I am afraid that that is where the plaudits end and the questions begin. The Government have said that mainstreaming women and girls’ rights should be built into decisions across the entire portfolio, yet significant concerns remain around mainstreaming, given evidence of mixed results of mainstreaming across different contexts. As the Gender and Development Network warns, poorly executed mainstreaming can dilute efforts, divert resources or become a tick-box exercise. I hope that the Minister will consider the network’s clear and tangible recommendations for a more effective approach. In addition to mainstreaming, is the Minister able to provide reassurances that the Government still see value in dedicated, stand-alone programmes for women and girls? Will they protect at least the current 12% of ODA allocated to gender equality?

When it comes to dedicated programmes that have been successful, there is no better example, in my mind, than that of the women’s integrated sexual health programme—WISH—which has transformed access to sexual and reproductive health and rights services for the poorest women and girls across 27 countries in Africa and Asia. Reaching over 6 million women and girls since 2018, it has averted nearly 37,000 maternal deaths, prevented 3.85 million unsafe abortions and helped 300,000 girls and young women stay in school. However, with centrally managed programmes expected to be cut by approximately 42% and to be replaced with “communities of expertise”, we need much greater clarity from the Government about what will happen to these programmes and how the women and equalities community of expertise will work. With funding cuts and life-saving SRHR service delivery being scaled down or closing, people in remote areas will have nowhere to access reproductive health services, women will be forced to continue pregnancies they were unable to avoid, teenage pregnancy will rise, girls will be denied an education, and death rates will rise.

There are actions that the Government can take to improve their effectiveness and help mitigate the worst outcomes for women and girls. The first step is robust accountability. The new commitment to gender mainstreaming should be operationalised in a way that sets clear objectives through incentive structures, develops institutional capacity and resources, and creates feedback mechanisms with women’s organisations. The second step is to set well-defined levels of high ambition. The FCDO should set clear priorities for heads of mission on women and girls, backed by necessary political heft. This should go hand in hand with the UK maintaining a strategic approach across its diplomatic corps and Armed Forces to put gender equality on the front lines of crisis response.

The UK should continue to support key multilateral bodies such as the UNFPA. In the context of a global rollback on reproductive rights, the UK must continue its important support and make its voice heard to protect the UNFPA’s mandate. But we must also ensure that our other significant multilateral contributions, to other UN institutions, to Gavi and the Global Fund, to the World Bank and regional development banks, are used as effectively as possible to benefit women and girls. As ODA shifts toward multilaterals, accountability for spending aligned with UK priorities becomes even more critical. The commitment to 90% relates only to the reducing bilateral portfolio; I would love to see this commitment extended to multilaterals.

Finally, the UK has a unique opportunity next year with the presidency of the G20. I hope the Government seize this chance to embed gender equality as a central theme of the summit. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that gender is effectively mainstreamed across the agenda, particularly on the finance track, given the evidence on the gendered effects of debt burdens, the wider rollback on rights internationally, and the sharp reduction in financing for gender equality work globally?

I will end with an example of what the cuts to ODA mean in practice—not in the abstract, but in reality for women and children. Earlier this year, “Channel 4 News” broadcast a special report, “A Matter of Life or Death: Giving Birth in Sierra Leone”, filmed over one week inside the busiest maternity corridors in Freetown. It is challenging to watch but shows exactly what is now at stake for women and babies as UK aid funding recedes. I urge noble Lords and the Minister to watch it, if she has not already.

The report focused on the saving lives programme, a health systems-strengthening initiative delivered in partnership with Concern Worldwide. Progress has been made in a country with one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates, but that progress is now at risk. The cuts are having real consequences: fewer services, shortages of essential medicines and weaker emergency referral systems. At a time when postpartum haemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal death, these changes will cost lives.

This is what happens when funding is withdrawn from programmes that work. Women and babies are placed at greater risk from preventable causes because health systems are being weakened—and without time to put alternatives in place. I call on the Government to publish a full assessment of the impact of ODA reductions on maternal and newborn survival before any further cuts are made, not after the damage has been done.

Investing in development outcomes for women and girls is the right thing to do. It is also the smartest and quickest route to economic growth, improved health outcomes and global stability. I hope the Government act with the urgency that this demands and do everything in their power to mitigate the impact of the cuts on the women and girls who face the greatest risk from them.